In a recent article by Web News editor Lucian Parfeni entitled Facebook Pushes the Boundaries of Online Privacy Again he explores the newly edited privacy policies that Facebook has changed and revised numorous times. However, with each change of language and policy Facebook still leaves users with little to no online privacy especially in regards to third party applications and their access to your information. How much control users may think they have is completely different then reality.
The article quotes Michael Richter, Facebook's deputy general counsel, saying that, "It is important to note that, while we're still developing many aspects of these products, user control over privacy remains essential to our innovation process and we'll continue to develop new tools to help you control the things you share on Facebook." Hopefully the creators will actually continue to work on giving the user more control of what information of theirs is submitted to other parties that usually try to solicit to them accordingly.
It is worrying that the network allows some sites that have been "pre approved" to access your information without obtaining the users active consent even if you do not choose Facebook Connect which integrates your information with that application. This gives those applications the right to post any of your information for all to see or for their own data.
WIth new developments Facebook will hopefully give users more protection, "The functionality is enabled by default but you will be able to block individual sites from accessing your info or disable the feature altogether. This may not be as bad as it seems but, in essence, it makes Facebook Connect an opt-out tool rather than an opt-in one."
I believe that while Facebook's functions and possibilities are extraordinary their are still major risk due to its open door policy with third party applications. Users deserve the right to protect themselves and know who is using their information and activity without their knowledge or consent. Without restrictions on how much other parties can access the social network can create more harm then help. While it is the users personal prerogative and responsibility not to post content they may not want being seen in a public forum it is the responsibility of the network to give them the choice to remain as private as one can on a social media site like Facebook.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
The Digital Divide
In an article by Sonia Arrison entitled, “What digital divide?” she downplays the severity of the situation surrounding the digital divide and compares it to the civil liberties issue of the 21st century. Arrison is talking about a recent report that in her opinion shows that people do not need government intervention to help close this gap. In the article she states that, “More than half the population of the United States is now online, an increase of 26 million people in 13 months, and the number continues to grow. The report also shows that Internet use is continuing to increase for everyone regardless of income, education, age, race, ethnicity or gender.”
Arrison also finds that “The DOC report proves that even lower income people can get wired if they see it as a priority. And that's no surprise given all the investment that local community groups and technology companies have spent on promoting access over the last couple of years. Those who cannot get online in this environment have other problems that a computer and Internet access won't fix.” In the end Arrison believes that internet “have nots” are actually just people who do not want the Internet.
Arrison believes that the actual problem lies in lack of education and that even with the right equipment those without connection can’t read or understand the internet unless they are educated. Arrison is adamant that the digital divide is not a crisis, “Technology is not a silver bullet that will solve all social and economic problems. This will disappoint those who believed President Clinton when he said, "Technology can be the greatest equalizing force our society or any other has ever known." If digital divide crusaders really want to solve the world's inequities, they should direct their efforts toward key issues that mattered before the advent of high technology. Promoting economic growth would be a good place to start.”
While I do believe that education is also a major crisis surrounding the issue I do not agree with Arrison in that I think the digital divide is a major crisis not just a theory. She does not address the other sides of the story. What about competitiveness and growth? What about the possibly of not being able to participate in democracy because some just do not have the access? Arrison fails to address the issue of national security in relation to the digital divide. What about those who feel resentment because of their isolation? The possibility of Terrorism as a result is plausible. I do not believe this gap will close naturally on its own, it will only widen.
Arrison also finds that “The DOC report proves that even lower income people can get wired if they see it as a priority. And that's no surprise given all the investment that local community groups and technology companies have spent on promoting access over the last couple of years. Those who cannot get online in this environment have other problems that a computer and Internet access won't fix.” In the end Arrison believes that internet “have nots” are actually just people who do not want the Internet.
Arrison believes that the actual problem lies in lack of education and that even with the right equipment those without connection can’t read or understand the internet unless they are educated. Arrison is adamant that the digital divide is not a crisis, “Technology is not a silver bullet that will solve all social and economic problems. This will disappoint those who believed President Clinton when he said, "Technology can be the greatest equalizing force our society or any other has ever known." If digital divide crusaders really want to solve the world's inequities, they should direct their efforts toward key issues that mattered before the advent of high technology. Promoting economic growth would be a good place to start.”
While I do believe that education is also a major crisis surrounding the issue I do not agree with Arrison in that I think the digital divide is a major crisis not just a theory. She does not address the other sides of the story. What about competitiveness and growth? What about the possibly of not being able to participate in democracy because some just do not have the access? Arrison fails to address the issue of national security in relation to the digital divide. What about those who feel resentment because of their isolation? The possibility of Terrorism as a result is plausible. I do not believe this gap will close naturally on its own, it will only widen.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
